I don't understand your argument. Whatever NH is, if I use a feature from a project, and this project *forces* me to use every feature it has, it is just wrong.
Vadim. On Aug 4, 10:49 am, Jason Meckley <[email protected]> wrote: > Huge, the more you explain what you are looking for the less NH fits > your needs. it sounds like you want transaction scripts, not an ORM. > An ORM is more than simply CRUD. It's cache, change tracking, > concurrency, unit of work, etc. transaction scripts are just CRUD > statements. this may better suite your needs. > > On Aug 4, 12:21 pm, Huge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Jason, > > > #1 - I don't know how to write a Bytecode provider. I had never heard > > of that before a couple weeks ago. To me it is still just something > > that gets in the way, some extra thing I have to have in order to use > > NHibernate. I know, I'm being naive. So I'll have to devote some > > days to doing research on that, now. > > > #2 - I have objects that last the entire lifetime of the application. > > When certain features of the app are accessed, certain subobjects of > > those lifetime objects must be loaded at that time. Our application > > is for the management and running of a Doctor's office. While we do > > have some functionality that fits into the Unit of Work paradigm, we > > have quite a bit that does not. > > > #3 - At my office I am the keeper of the bytes. Nobody else will > > watch the size of the download but me. One thing I cannot stop doing > > because it is part of my blood, is trying to optimize network > > traffic. That means everything from properly compressing JPG/PNG/GIF > > images for use on the web, to monitoring the size and number of third > > party DLLs that make their way into our customers's downloads. Some > > of our customers really are using very old and outdated equipment and > > I try always to get the product down to the simplest and smallest > > form. It does make a difference for these people. > > > #4 - I am now using my own build of NHibernate that doesn't have > > System.Data.OracleClient or System.Web references. The reason for > > this is to be compatible with the so-called .Net 3.5 Framework "Client > > Profile" which doesn't include either of those. > > > Thank you everyone else for your responses as well. I had considered > > Linq2SQL previously but since I had such a terrible time with Entity > > Framework 4's poor Optimistic Concurrency implementation, I moved away > > from Microsoft ORM. Now, considering your responses, I will revisit > > Linq2SQL and see if that will satisfy our needs. > > > Hugh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
